U.S. Department of the State, Press Briefing – February 6, 2023 (Only the part on China)

2023年2月7日 15:00

Washington, D.C.

QUESTION: Is there any active planning for the Secretary to go back? What kind of a timeline are we looking at? Can you detail these – when conditions allow – what are they basically?

MR PRICE: So the short answer is right now we are focused on a couple things. We have been engaged extensively with our partners and allies over the course of recent days. Over the weekend, today, at senior levels, both in Washington and from our embassy in Beijing, we have been consulting with a broad array of like-minded countries. We want them to understand what it is that we’ve experienced. As you’ve heard from my colleagues at the Department of Defense, other countries, other regions of the world have also been subjected to these brazen violations of sovereignty as well. We think it’s important in the first instance that we share as much as we can, because these are challenges that many of us have and will continue to have to confront together.

Now, when it comes to engagement with the PRC, we’ve also been very clear that we seek lines of communication, lines of dialogue to remain open. Secretary Blinken picked up the phone on Friday morning to reach out to Wang Yi, the senior foreign policy official within the People’s Republic of China, with a couple of messages. One was that even in this time of heightened tension, in the context of the discovery of the high-altitude surveillance balloon, we wanted to be able to pick up the phone to speak to one another. We believe that dialogue and diplomacy is always important when it comes to a competitive relationship like this. We believe it’s especially important when tensions are even further heightened.

We’re going to remain in touch with our PRC counterparts. The embassy has been in touch with their PRC counterparts. Senior individuals in this building have been in touch with their PRC counterparts since Friday as well. But you have to remember that the trip that Secretary Blinken was to have undertaken starting on Friday was to have been an extension of the conversation between President Biden and President Xi in Bali. That conversation, and in turn the conversation that Secretary Blinken was to have had yesterday and today, would have been about establishing that floor on the relationship to see to it that competition doesn’t veer into conflict, but also to see – to test the proposition of collaboration, cooperation in areas that matter to us, that are of profound interest to us, but also that are of profound interest to the rest of the world.

The discovery of this high-altitude surveillance balloon in the days that preceded the Secretary’s visit, of course, undermined the point of that visit. We would not have been able to conduct the important business that Secretary Blinken was looking forward to doing on the ground in Beijing in that context.

Now, just as we continue to remain in contact, in dialogue with the PRC in the coming days, as I expect we’ll do at various levels, when – we’ll determine when it’s appropriate to potentially look to travel to the PRC to have the type of discussion that we think it’s incumbent on our countries to have.

QUESTION: So if you can’t have that conversation now about the guardrails and this incident has happened which was a breach of sovereignty, where does that leave the U.S.-China relationship, which wasn’t – which was already strained anyway?

MR PRICE: Well, look, we’ve always been clear-eyed about this relationship. We know it’s the most consequential, we know it’s the most complex relationship we have in all of our bilateral relationships. We suspect it’s also the most consequential and complex bilateral relationship on the face of the Earth. We believe it’s important to – again, to build that floor under the relationship to see to it that areas of potential competition don’t veer into conflict. We believe it’s incumbent on us, the United States, as a responsible power, to see to it that we are doing all we can to protect and to promote not only our interests, but the elements that countries around the world care about.

And there are some cases where our interests with the PRC do intersect. Part of the agenda of Secretary Blinken’s travel to Beijing – what would have been his travel to Beijing – was to talk about some of those issues, again, because it’s in our interests, it’s in the interests of the rest of the world, it’s what the rest of the world expects of us.

We are – we haven’t had conversations at this point about rescheduling the trip. As I said, right now we are focused on coordinating closely with our allies and partners, sharing information, comparing notes, making sure that they understand the information that we have in our possession, they understand the basis for our actions, and that they understand the brazen nature of this violation of our sovereignty, violations of sovereignty that are not unique to us, that have taken place across countries and across regions around the globe.

So that’s going to continue to be our focus in recent – in the coming days.

QUESTION: Ned —

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: If the conversations since the Secretary spoke with Wang Yi on Friday have not revolved around or touched on a rescheduling of the trip, what have they touched on? I mean, I’m presuming that on Saturday, if there were conversations, that they would have been about the shootdown of the balloon. Is that correct, or am I – well, that yesterday —

MR PRICE: So it is true that we notified – it is true that we notified the PRC after the fact of the action that the U.S. –

QUESTION: And that they saw it on TV?

MR PRICE: I presume they were watching, as were many of us. That was conveyed to them on Saturday. But in a sense, it shouldn’t have come to a – as a surprise to our PRC interlocutors. As you know —

QUESTION: Well, what else, other than the balloon being shot down? What else did these conversations go over?

MR PRICE: I’m not going to get into the conversations in any detail, but precisely what we said publicly is what we’ve conveyed privately as well. This was inappropriate, it was irresponsible, it was unacceptable for –

QUESTION: Okay, but that’s – right, but that’s the same thing you were saying on Friday and the same thing the Secretary said publicly, the same thing that you’ve said publicly, the same thing the White House has said publicly. So the Chinese already know that. So what were the point – what were the point or points of the conversations that have happened since the Secretary spoke to Wang Yi?

MR PRICE: Well, part of the point, Matt, was repetition. And repetition can be important, especially when you’re dealing with various interlocutors at various levels through various parts of a different government. We wanted the PRC to be under no illusions about the way in which we’re treating this, the way we see this, and the implications that it has had not only on the Secretary’s travel, but more broadly as well, again, it was inappropriate, it was irresponsible, it was unacceptable for this sort of thing to happen. We wanted to be very clear with them about that. We did notify the PRC after the fact that this action had taken place on Saturday, that the rest of the world saw as well.

But again, it should not have come as a complete surprise to the PRC. When Secretary Blinken spoke with Wang Yi on Friday morning, he underscored twice for Wang Yi that the United States would be prepared to take any appropriate action to protect our interests. A similar message was conveyed to the PRC embassy official that Secretary Blinken and Deputy Secretary Sherman met with here on Wednesday when that individual was summoned to the department to discuss this. We are – even as we convey these tough messages in a candid way, we are going to continue to maintain in contact with the PRC.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR PRICE: We believe in the importance of these channels of dialogue, precisely to – so that we can see to it —

QUESTION: Last one, but if it’s – if it’s just repetition all the time, are you not at all concerned that the Chinese are going to start to think like you guys think when they repeat their whole Taiwan line every – at every single meeting they have with you – that it doesn’t really do any good just to repeat the same “This is inappropriate, it’s inexcusable, it’s a violation of international law” – do you not think that it’s going to have the same non-impact that their repetition of the talking point – of their talking points on Taiwan have with you?

MR PRICE: Matt, we are now, what, 48 hours from Saturday afternoon. We’re 72 hours from Friday. We are talking about this over the course of a few days now. I think to compare this and to try and analogize in that way, it’s not only asymmetric but it’s just not an apt analogy.

QUESTION: Ned, on Türkiye?

QUESTION: Ned, the President —

MR PRICE: Yes.

QUESTION: So President Biden is a big believer in personal diplomacy. Isn’t it more important than ever to talk to China in person or even to confront China? Is there any preconditions to resume the talks —

MR PRICE: We –

QUESTION: – or the visit?

MR PRICE: We, too, are big believers in dialogue and diplomacy, absolutely. That’s precisely why Secretary Blinken and Deputy Secretary Sherman took part in the conversation with a PRC embassy official here on Wednesday. It’s precisely why Secretary Blinken picked up the phone on Friday morning to speak to Wang Yi. It’s precisely why senior officials in this building were in touch with PRC officials and officials in – at our embassy in Beijing have also been in touch with PRC officials as well.

We can convey messages in the near term as we emerge from what has been a very public incident between the United States and the PRC, knowing that, yes, face-to-face diplomacy is some ways is invaluable. But in the near term, we were managing at the time what was an ongoing situation. We wanted to be very clear with the PRC about our concerns about what this could lead to in terms of the action that ultimately took place on Saturday, and the fact that this action seems to have – well, in fact, did undermine the point of the trip that the two presidents agreed to in November.

You have to remember, the Secretary’s planned travel to Beijing was an outgrowth of the multi-hour meeting that President Biden and that President Xi of China had in November of last year on the sidelines of the G20 in Bali. It was not a meeting to have discrete talks on tactical issues, on just a few specifics here and there. This was to have been a fairly broad, wide-ranging discussion on constructing a floor below the relationship and, where we can, seeing to it – testing the proposition, at least – that we could try to seek out additional cooperation in areas that are profoundly of interest to us and the rest of the world.

Now, all of those things continue to be important. But by taking the action that they did, by engaging in this flagrant violation of our national sovereignty, and by taking this irresponsible and ultimately unacceptable act, the PRC in effect undermined the point of what was to have been that face-to-face diplomacy. That in no way devalues the importance, the indispensability of face-to-face diplomacy in general.

I suspect there will be opportunities going forward for the Secretary to engage in that face-to-face diplomacy. After all, we didn’t cancel this meeting, we postponed it. We postponed it until such a time where it would be appropriate for the Secretary to travel to Beijing to have the type of meeting that we hope to have, a meeting that could help to establish a floor under the relationship and a meeting where we could discuss everything that’s of interest to us and many issues that are of interest to the rest of the world as well.

QUESTION: What is your reaction to critics saying that the United States overreacted due to domestic political pressure since this incident happened – a similar incident happened before, and given the fact Secretary Blinken is going to be the first secretary to visit China in four years and maybe meet – potentially meet President Xi Jinping?

MR PRICE: We had an opportunity. We had what would have been a valuable opportunity to engage in that face-to-face diplomacy. It was to have been a near-term diplomacy. Of course, the blame does not fall to us for undermining that opportunity. It falls to the PRC for engaging in what was – in what was ultimately an inappropriate and irresponsible or unacceptable act. We’ve acted responsibly. We’ve acted practically. We’ve acted prudently in this case but also in the broader context of the bilateral relationship. We think it’s important that we have these lines of communication so that we can make very clear to the PRC what we’re doing and why we’re doing it.

Unfortunately, they decided to undertake this action in the days leading up to Secretary Blinken’s travel that completely undermined the point of the trip and left us with, unfortunately, no option but to postpone it.

QUESTION: Lastly, could you please clarify? So you said Secretary Blinken was supposed to depart for Beijing last Friday. But you have never announced the exact date of his visit. What’s the reason behind it?

MR PRICE: I think, as all of those reporters in this room who travel with us pretty frequently, they do know that we often announce travel the day before, the day of. We were set to depart for Beijing, to make the long trip to Beijing, on Friday evening. It had been our intention to announce it earlier in the week. We ultimately had an opportunity to announce it on Friday morning. But unfortunately, the PRC put us in a position where it just did not make sense at that time to continue with the trip because their irresponsible, inappropriate actions unfortunately undermined the utility of such a trip at that time.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. One China and one on North Korea. The Chinese deputy foreign minister will visit to Russia. And also, it was reported that China supplied military equipment through Russian defense company and supported the invasion of Ukraine. Do you have anything there? How can you see that Russia and China, they get together right now?

MR PRICE: Well, this is something we’ve spoken about extensively over the better part of a year now, the relationship between the PRC and Russia that in some ways has deepened. We’ve seen very tangible manifestations of that. It was just about a year ago, maybe almost exactly a year ago if memory serves, where we saw a communique emerge between the PRC and Russia speaking of a friendship with no limits. We have seen the PRC attempt to take what they portray as a neutral stance to Russia’s brutal war against Ukraine, but in reality it’s been anything but. They have provided Russia with rhetorical support. They’ve provided them with political support. They have continued their economic relationship as well.

Our message to the PRC has been very simple: we’re watching very closely; there are and would be costs and consequences if we were to see a systematic effort to help Russia bypass the sanctions that dozens of countries around the world have enacted against the Kremlin, President Putin, others, for this brazen aggression against Ukraine; and there would be consequences for the provision of lethal material that Russia could then use against civilians in Ukraine in the same way that it sought lethal material from Iran, from DPRK to use against the people of Ukraine.

QUESTION: And one more on North Korea. North Korea is preparing for a large-scale military parade this Wednesday. How is the U.S. prepared for contingency?

MR PRICE: Well, these are always exercises that we watch. I think it is almost certainly the case that these have more messaging and propaganda value than any material value to the DPRK. But we’re of course going to be watching, as we always do. But more so, we are investing in our alliances and our partnerships in the region and well beyond. As you know, the Secretary’s ROK counterpart was in Washington on Friday. They had an opportunity to have a wide-ranging discussion about the challenges and opportunities that are presented in the Indo-Pacific region and well beyond. At the top of that list of challenges is the DPRK. It’s why we’re committed on – with an ironclad basis to the security of our ROK ally, to the security of our Japanese allies. It’s why we have attempted to deepen and to advance trilateral cooperation not just in the context of the DPRK and its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons program, but 0across the range of challenges and opportunities that our three countries, that our alliance faces.

Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. One just on what – my colleague just used the term “overreaction” with regard to China. Is – how much truth do you think it is if you say that the U.S. overreacted but just President Biden being pressured from, like, the U.S. media a little too much and there is not much truth into the surveillance equipment terminology there, and that it was just some media people who won’t want President Biden and China to get a little bit closer, that they were not interested in Blinken’s visit. And is there any truth to that, do you think? Or no, there was some surveillance equipment found in the balloons as well?

MR PRICE: So a couple things there. First, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the United States to suggest that we take these sort of actions based on anything other than what’s in our national interest. This was a decision that the President made in close consultation with the Secretary of State, with the National Security Advisor, with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the Secretary of Defense as well. And ultimately, the course of action was one that was put forward and executed by the Department of Defense.

When it comes to what we’ve heard from the PRC, I’m just not going to give that too much oxygen. Let me see if I can state it as clearly as I can: The PRC knows precisely what this was. The PRC knows precisely why this was in our airspace. The PRC knows precisely what this was doing over the United States. And ultimately, the PRC knows precisely why we did what we did.

The Secretary made the point on Friday that if the shoe were on the other foot, if something analogous were to have happened within PRC airspace, you can only imagine the response from Beijing. We’ve been clear. We have been resolute. But we’ve also been practical as well, and we have taken practical steps since the time this high-altitude surveillance balloon was detected to mitigate its ability to collect intelligence against sensitive sites, to mitigate any threat it could pose to the American people.

But more than that, in a way we flipped the script because we’ve trained quite a bit of capabilities of our own at this high-altitude surveillance balloon while it was violating our airspace. We learned quite a bit about it and the practice in general, the technology that was on board. And as you’ve heard I think just recently from my colleagues at the Department of Defense, there is an active effort underway to recovery what is left of this high-altitude surveillance balloon on the surface of the ocean, and in the coming days there will be an effort to collect what we can from the bottom of the ocean.

QUESTION: In Pakistan, in my home city of Peshawar —

MR PRICE: Well, anything else on China before we go on?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PRICE: John, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just on those statements you just made, have you guys ruled out an accident or incompetence when it comes to the balloon on the part of the Chinese?

MR PRICE: John, I think those explanations just ring hollow to us. They ring as hollow as the idea that this was some sort of weather balloon.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on this?

QUESTION: Just to clarify, you said something that the Chinese or the – I guess if the shoe was on the other foot and so on, what would they do? Are you suggesting that there are no surveillance balloons over China, American surveillance balloons over China?

MR PRICE: I am.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. —

QUESTION: A follow-up on the —

MR PRICE: Go ahead, Alex.

QUESTION: Given how you dictated the scope of the violation, they violated the U.S. airspace, is it fair for us to expect more punitive steps from the U.S.? You don’t down the balloon and just do nothing if they violate the U.S. airspace.

MR PRICE: So —

QUESTION: Like sanctions or something like that.

MR PRICE: So Alex, in the first instance we’re discussing this with our allies and partners. We’re comparing notes about what has happened to us in recent days, what has happened to us within recent years as well. We want to learn as much as we can about not only what’s happened recently but in recent years, and we’re going to take steps to protect our interests as appropriate.

Anything else on China?

QUESTION: Does the U.S. —

QUESTION: Yes.

MR PRICE: Okay, Ian.

QUESTION: Can you just talk a little bit about how this balloon incident is going to change the trip that the Secretary may eventually go on if he does go? Will Blinken bring up the incident? Will he convey these messages in person to his counterparts there, and will he talk about Chinese espionage sort of more broadly with his counterparts there?

MR PRICE: Well, in some ways the trip that had been planned would have provided the Secretary an opportunity to discuss this broad set of challenges. As you know, we face a wide range of challenges from the PRC. One is in the espionage realm. We face economic challenges, we face diplomatic challenges, political challenges, economic challenges, and security challenges of course.

So every time we have an extended discussion with our PRC counterparts we spend a lot of time speaking about the threats that we face, the competition that is a part of this relationship. And as I alluded to before, we seek both to advance our interests and to do what the rest of the world expects of us: to have a discussion of areas where we potentially can cooperate or even deepen that cooperation.

If and when the Secretary returns or travels to Beijing – and again, this trip was postponed, it wasn’t canceled – I fully expect he’ll have an opportunity to discuss the full range of our concerns with PRC behavior in all of those realms.

Dylan.

QUESTION: Does the United States has a read on the tone of the statement issued by Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Do you think it’s targeted on domestic Chinese audience, especially on those ultranationalists, or is it a signaling to U.S. that there may be more retaliation actions? I mean, do you sense any tone, more conciliatory tone, from your private conversation?

MR PRICE: And Nike, I’m just not going to parse their statements. We’re going to be looking for actions. We’re going to be looking for the PRC to act responsibly, to act responsibly and practically, calmly, resolutely, in the way that we have throughout this and over the much broader horizon.

Dylan.

QUESTION: Yeah, the Pentagon said they were tracking the balloon since at least January 28th, so last Saturday. The White House said the President was briefed on it Tuesday, so a few days after that. I’m curious. Can you clarify when the top officials in this department were first briefed on this? When did they first learn about it? And then why did it take till Friday morning to cancel the trip if you presumably knew about this earlier in the week?

MR PRICE: So Dylan, our colleague at the White House and the Defense Department have spoken to the tactical timeline of this. But you are right that we learned about it early in the week. Obviously we were traveling early in the week to the Middle East. We were in Egypt, Israel, the West Bank when this first started to percolate. The Secretary was deeply engaged with his counterparts as well as with the President on this issue throughout the course of the week and as the end of the week neared.

And ultimately, Dylan, these are difficult decisions. They are difficult decisions regarding the most prudent course to take with a high-altitude surveillance balloon like this. There are prudent – there are difficult diplomatic decisions to make. But as the week progressed and as we considered it and talked about it with partners across the government, it became clear to us that the PRC’s reckless, irresponsible, inappropriate action had undermined entirely for the time being the point of what was supposed to have been the trip that was starting late last week. That decision ultimately was finally made early Friday. We informed all of you shortly thereafter.

QUESTION: On China. China and India but China first. Ned, I’ve been saying this for the last – over 25 years that China was spying on the United States to get its secrets in many ways. Do you believe China is spying on the United States to get all the secrets, but they are now like in industries, and nuclears, and others? And also, few Chinese citizens are now – they were arrested and in jail.

MR PRICE: Yeah, so look, I’m not going to go into any detail, but I’ll just say this: We’re under no illusions about the challenges about the threats we face from the PRC. The reason we have sought to engage in dialogue, in diplomacy, is in the first instance to manage that competition, to see to it that that competition doesn’t veer into conflict, but also to set guardrails on a relationship that is complex, that is consequential, precisely because we have a number of concerns about PRC behavior, espionage being one of them.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-february-6-2023/